RE-IMAGINING CONCEPTS SUCH AS ORGANIZATION,

ADMINISTRATION, POLITY, MANAGEMENT, CONSTITUTION,

AND LEADERSHIP FROM THE VISION OF EKKLESIA.

I. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH1

The Bible teaches that the local church, which we should attend, will have certain essential
characteristics. The organization of the church has a significant impact upon the work and
activities of the church, so it should be considered when determining which church to attend.
However, before we study such an issue, we must first recognize that there is indeed a pattern
for the church that God expects us to follow, and we must also understand some basic concepts
about the church. In this article, we will try to summarize the many complex issues related to
church organization, which include cooperation among local churches and with other
institutions.

1. What Is Meant by Organization

The term organization of the church refers to how the church is set up or organized. Should it
have committees or boards? Or, may it use societies of cooperation or outside institutions to
achieve its work? Can local churches be part of a larger, earthly structure that is governed by
men? Who picks the local preacher, deacons, and elders? How do local churches cooperate to
achieve common goals? All of these questions are addressed in a study of God’s plan for the
church's organization.

2. What this Question is Not About

Since this question is addressing organizations such as missionary societies and orphan homes,
some people may accidentally mistake this article's intention to oppose taking care of orphans
or spreading God’s Word. However, this article is most certainly not against these actions. The
Bible teaches that these are essential characteristics of the Christian life (James 1:26-27;
Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 10:29-37). Therefore, please do not mistake this question to be
whether we or the church should be involved in such works; rather, the question is how the
work of the church should be accomplished.

3. The Heart of the Matter

Fundamental to this study is the proper understanding of New Testament examples in
establishing authority. Since most of the Bible commentary on church organization are
examples of New Testament churches operating under the approval of God, we must determine
the authority that is inherent in these examples.
As we study the Bible to determine the nature of the church's organization, we will find two
reoccurring themes or points that are at the heart of the matter. First, the organization of the

1
Trevor Bowen, The Organization of the Church, http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/organization.html

~1~
church begins and ends with the local church, and it should be entirely autonomous of all other
organizations, including other local churches. Second, the New Testament churches did not
participate in cooperation, but they did help each other through a form of cooperation that never
violated their autonomous independence.

4. Church Cooperation
The Bible does endorse a type of cooperation. However, we must determine if the cooperation
in which our local church participates is conducted according to the pattern. Some
misunderstandings may arise through people using the same word in different ways in different
contexts. Therefore, to help us clarify the use of the word "cooperation", we will divide the
Bible teaching on church cooperation into three distinct categories, which we will define and
discuss:
a. Independent Distributed Cooperation
b. Independent Conjunctive Cooperation
c. Collective Cooperation
Although these words are not found in the Bible, we can use these labels to help us categorize
and recognize the different ways in which churches can cooperate. However, we will find that
some of these forms of cooperation may be found in the Bible, while others may not.

a. Independent Distributed Cooperation

This category is best demonstrated through the work in which many churches participate to
further the gospel. Many congregations support a local preacher. Some support preachers in
new areas. And, hopefully all promote the gospel through the efforts of their members. Each
of these churches could be acting independently and in complete ignorance of the others, and
yet each would be cooperating in the fulfilment of a common goal. It is only through this form
of cooperation that the universal church ever works or operates.
Jesus Christ is the head of the universal church, and every member is in a sense cooperating
with the others when they obey the wishes of the body's head (Ephesians 1:20-23; 4:15-16).
Even though distributed over the expanse of the world and time, each Christian participates in
the common work of the church and is, therefore, involved in a distributed and independent
form of cooperation. It is in this sense that the universal church works together as “the church
of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15).

b. Independent Conjunctive Cooperation

This category is similar to the above category in that the people or groups involved act
independently of each other. However, this category is unique in that it includes those that
deliberately and conjunctively cooperate, or in parallel. In the Bible, we read of two exemplary
cases that define the authority for this type of cooperation. The best and most well-known Bible
example is the benevolent case of the Gentile churches sending aid to Judean Christians who
were starving from a famine. Let us focus our attention upon compiling and understanding the
scriptures related to this first example, so that we may determine the boundaries for this type
of cooperation.

~2~
i. Benevolent Church Cooperation
The background of this example involves a large-scale famine that struck Palestine in the early
days of the church, which left many Christians starving in Judea. However, before it ever
occurred, we read of other Christians contributing to the future need that was miraculously
foreseen:
“And in these days, prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of them,
named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great
famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the
brethren dwelling in Judea. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands
of Barnabas and Saul.” Acts 11:27-30
From this, we learn that one local church assisted other local churches by taking up its
collection and sending it to the needy by the hands of its own chosen messengers. Moreover,
when we read of the Jerusalem saints receiving contributions, we also find that the money was
delivered to the local church's elders. Therefore, using this passage as a pattern for church
cooperation, we can determine that contributions should not be delivered to an organization or
institution to accomplish the work, but it should be given directly to the elders who oversee the
church in need - if we are going to follow the pattern.
Please note that at this point we must make a presumption. We know that there were multiple
congregations in Judea (I Thessalonians 2:14; Galatians 1:22); consequently, we must presume
that the single collective contribution was either given to one set of elders who divided the
relief among the other churches, or we must presume that it was given to the local elders of
each work based upon each congregation need. However, one of the conclusions ceases to be
a presumption and becomes a necessary inference when we realize that elders could not have
divided or controlled the distribution without violating each church’s autonomy. This would
put them in conflict with other Bible teaching to oversee the “flock among” them (I Peter 5:1-
3). Therefore, to assume that a single church acted as a “central” or “sponsoring” church is to
make an unsubstantiated presumption and “add to” God’s Word.

ii. The Ongoing Benevolent Need

From other scriptures, we learn that 10 years after this first famine, a second need arose in
Jerusalem that prompted a second collection from even some of the more remote Gentile
congregations. We can read passages from which we find that each congregation was ordered
to take up a collection (I Corinthians16:1; Romans 15:25-27; II Corinthians 8-9), as it is part
of the work of the church (Ephesians 4:16-16). However, each church was allowed to determine
the amount to send by their messengers. Consequently, each church cooperated concurrently,
in parallel, to assist with this single need. However, we never read of any centralizing agency
or institution. Moreover, the example we have is messengers, chosen by the contributing church
(I Corinthians 16:1-4), delivering the contribution into the hands of elders of the local church,
or churches in need (Acts 11:27-30). This substantiates the pattern from the other passage:
Each church needs to be involved in the work God gave it to do, but each church is responsible
for its collection and distribution. There is no room in the pattern for a centralizing agency,

~3~
sponsoring church, or institution of cooperation. This prompts us to ask ourselves the repetitive,
but essential question, “Will we venture outside and beyond this simple pattern that God has
given us?”
We should also recognize that the congregation that received the contribution was always in
need. In each case, the needy church was suffering an emergency that was bigger than the local
church’s capacity to handle (II Corinthians 8:13-15; Acts 11:27-29). We nowhere read of a
single congregation accumulating funds to undertake a benevolent need beyond its
membership. Therefore, a third component of the pattern is that the congregation to receive
funds must be in need. This excludes centralizing churches that collect funds from other
churches to accomplish a work that is beyond their need, obligations, and boundaries of
autonomy.

c. Collective Cooperation
This third and final type of cooperation involves the collaboration of churches towards a single
goal. It differs from the other types of cooperation in that multiple congregations unite their
resources under a central controlling, decisive body. This body could be a missionary society,
orphan home, the elders of a sponsoring congregation, or any other institution. It is also
different from the other forms of cooperation in that the Bible contains no inference, example,
or statement that authorizes such cooperation. It is simply not in the Bible. Although many
questions and issues could be raised to defend this type of cooperation, when we carefully
address these questions, we find that there is still no Biblical basis for collective church
cooperation. Therefore, the specific Bible examples combined with the Bible silence for this
type of cooperation provide a specific pattern of church organization that excludes this last type
of cooperation.

In conclusion, we have examined Bible examples of two types of approved cooperation.

Isolated congregations in a sense cooperate by their independent efforts to spread the gospel
and build up the universal church. Secondly, churches may cooperate by directly helping a
needy congregation or concurrently supporting a gospel preacher. However, we find no pattern
for congregations uniting funds and oversight under a central church or organization to
collectively cooperate, such as through an orphan home, missionary society, or central
sponsoring church. This introduces an organizational framework that is not found in the Bible.
Moreover, it is specifically excluded by the specific organization that is given for us in the
Bible. Therefore, any use of organizations beyond the local church constitutes "adding to"
God’s Word and the pattern for accomplishing His work for the church.

~4~
 II. ADMINISTRATION OF THE LOCAL CHURCH2

The church can be described in many ways, a body, a family, or the bride of Christ. When we
look at the church today we need to recognize the need for leadership and organization. Without
leadership and administration, the church will struggle to fulfil the mission of God.
What is administration in the local church? Church administration refers to the way that a
church government is set up. There are three common types of church administration:
Congregationalist, Elder-led, and Denominational. Christians strive to have a biblical church
government within their church.
The church is very important to God, we are his people and he loves us, we are also a very
important avenue to reach the world with Christ. As Christians in the church, we want to be
effective hands and feet of Jesus, and this starts with the organization in the church through
administration. Administration happens in different ways according to the church or
denomination.

1. What is Church Administration?

Church administration is the organization and leadership that happens in the church to help the
church to run effectively and on a mission. The church is more than just a business, we
sometimes have to act like one, but we as the Church have a global mission we are called to be
the hands and feet of Jesus.
Church administration is the government of the church. The church administration sets up rules
and regulations to help the Church operate to its maximum potential. Church administration is
in charge of keeping the church building running, paying for those who work, and scheduling,
need planning events and church services. Essentially, they make the church-run effectively.
The logistical side of operating the church is one reason why we need administration. The
administration frees the church to do exactly what the church needs to do. This means that the
church administration needs to be centred on God. There are different views on exactly how to
have an administration within the church. Most people see the administration has a positive
impact on how the church operates.

2. Different Views on Church Administration

We want church administration so we can serve our community and others around the world
effectively. To effectively function it is important to have an organization within the church
administration. There is some disagreement on what this exact organization within the church
should look like, but we should be willing to work with what helps our church be most
effective.

2
Evelyn Oliver, Administration of the Local Church: Definition & Viewpoints, https://justdisciple.com/
administration-church/#:~:text=Church%20administration%20is%20the%20government,planning%20
events%20and%20church%20services.

~5~
a. Congregationalism
Congregationalism is a type of church government that is mainly self-governing. They run their
affairs and operate individually. Each congregation can govern themselves, not depending on
other churches and their decisions.
There are many congregational churches, but no power that is overall and makes decisions for
all congregational churches. Each member influences how the church operates, they can call
meetings and vote. Congregational churches include some Protestant churches.

b. Elder-Led Churches
When a church is elder-led this means that there are specific people who are appointed to make
decisions on behalf of the church. We see in scripture qualifications for roles such as these. For
example, Paul writes to Timothy about qualifications for overseers and deacons. In Titus we
see Paul telling him qualifications for elders.
Elder-led churches give the highest authority to the pastors and elders in the church, not the
general congregation. Many Churches follow the elder-led administration, this includes
churches in denominations such as Baptist Churches and Presbyterian Churches.

c. Denominationalism
Denominationalism is where the church is organized with one person or group of leaders who
govern over all churches of that denomination. This means decisions made outside the church
will affect the Church.
There may be one person or group of people who has authority to lead all Churches of the
denomination Churches in this category sometimes include Lutheran Churches and Anglican
Churches.

3. What The Bible Says About Church Administration

Throughout Scripture, we see the importance of communication, organization as well as other
key aspects to Church administration. We can look at these Scriptures to see a better picture of
how we can run our church administration today.
 God sends us into the world to be His hands and feet. Church administration helps us to
achieve that goal. (John 20:21)
 We all have different talents and abilities within the church, and in the organized fashion
of administration, we can all use our strengths to help everyone else. (Romans 12:4,5)
 The Bible gives us so many examples of administration, we see some of the first churches
as they start. Paul writes to a lot of the new churches, many of which he helped plant. We
read the instruction that he gives to Titus and Timothy as he had left them in charge of
churches in Ephesus and Cyprus. (Titus 1:5)
 In 1 Corinthians, we see how God has gifted us in different ways to serve him. This includes
those who are gifted in administration and other leadership roles within the church. (1
Corinthians 12:28). The gifts we have received from God we want to use to bring glory to
God can happen through church administration.

~6~
4. Why Church Administration Matters
God uses the Church in powerful ways, but being imperfect humans means we make mistakes
that can affect the whole church body. Church administration is in place to help effectively
operate the church with accountability to help when things are not going as they should.
No matter if you are the Pastor or a member of your church, you have an important role to play
in your local church. Because we as humans are imperfect, working with others in the church
is key to building an effective Church. Proper church administration enables the church to be
who God has called the church to be. We see from the early Church in Acts that we are called
to reach the world and make a difference for Christ. This can happen effectively with good
Church leadership in administration.
“It takes more than a busy church, a friendly church, or even an evangelical
church to impact a community for Christ. It must be a church ablaze, led by
leaders who are ablaze for God.” -Wesley L. Duewel

III. FORMS OF CHURCH POLITY3

Church polity (church government) refers to how a church’s leadership is structured. While
there are many variations and nuances found within individual churches (and these are too
numerous to list), essentially all are variations of one of the following: episcopal, presbyterian,
and congregational. (The subject may be complicated by the fact that there are denominations
known by each of these names.) Every church is either independent with no higher authority
outside of that local church, or it is part of a larger group or denomination with leaders who
exert control from outside the church.
One type of church polity is episcopal. The word episcopal is from the Greek word episkopos,
which is often translated in English as “bishop” or “overseer.” This form of church government
functions with a single leader, often called a bishop. The Roman Catholic Church may be the
most well-known of the episcopal-type churches. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome. Below
him are other bishops who are in turn responsible for other bishops down to the parish priest.
The Anglican Church, Episcopal Church, and Greek Orthodox Church all have this form of
government. One priest or bishop answers to another, who answers to another, until “at the
top” there is one bishop (often called the archbishop) who has final authority.
Many other churches have an episcopalian form of government, even though they may not
officially recognize it. Some independent churches have one pastor who has ultimate authority
in all decisions of the church (sometimes this is called the “strong pastor” form of government).
Some multi-site churches may have a single pastor at each location but one “head pastor” who
is the final authority over all of the sites. Some churches may claim to have presbyterian (elder)

3
Got Questions Ministries, What are the different forms of church polity? https://www.gotquestions.org/church-
polity.html

~7~
or congregational rule but, in reality, have a single bishop or strong pastor who has final
authority.
Another type of church polity is the presbyterian form. The word presbyterian is from the Greek
word presbuteros, which is usually translated as “elder.” In this form of government, authority
rests not with a single individual but with the body of elders or presbyters. In denominational
churches, the local board of elders answers to a higher board of elders, which is made up of
select elders to represent each church. Ultimately, the final board of elders (sometimes called
the general assembly) has authority on matters in that denomination. In independent or
autonomous churches, final authority rests with the local board of elders. In some churches
with the elder rule, the elders are elected or ratified by the congregation. However, once the
elders are ratified, the congregation does not have the power to remove them or overturn their
decisions.
The third type of church polity is the congregational form. In congregational churches, the final
authority rests with the congregation. This polity takes various forms. In some churches, there
are almost no designated leaders (or, as some might say, except the Holy Spirit), and the
congregation is involved in virtually every decision that has to be made—from the colour of
the carpet to the support of missionaries. In other churches, the congregation elects the primary
office holders (pastor, elder, deacons) who will then make decisions, only consulting the
congregation on major issues such as incurring debt to build a new building or calling a new
pastor. However, in congregational churches, if a majority of the congregation objects to any
of the decisions or believes that a leader should be removed from office, they have the authority
to take action. Most churches with the congregational rule are also independent, as they believe
strongly that final authority resides with the local congregation. (For instance, Baptist churches
may be part of a denomination—Southern, American, etc., but the “denomination” has no
authority over the decisions of those local churches. The strongest action that could be taken
by the denomination is that the individual church would no longer be received in fellowship;
likewise, any individual church can withdraw at any time. In this case, the denomination is
more of a voluntary, cooperative fellowship.)
As already noted, there are variations and nuances too numerous to be covered here, and there
will always be exceptions to what is stated above. Even denominations that have episcopalian
or presbyterian forms of government often have to adjust their positions due to congregational
pressure and popular opinion. There are evangelical, Bible-believing churches that utilize each
of the forms of church government mentioned above. The form of church government is not a
major doctrinal issue. The most important issue is that those who are in leadership positions
must submit to the authority of Christ and obediently follow His lead as revealed in Scripture
(Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2). Christ is the Head of the Church, and if any system, board, individual
leader, or congregation begins to displace Christ and the Word with their own beliefs and
desires, then that leadership is no longer legitimate.

~8~
 IV. MANAGING THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD4

Basic management principles and skills are therefore needed to lead an organization when and
where people are working together towards a common goal or vision (Rainey 2009). This
applies to the church too. Within the unique framework of the church as an organization,
metaphorically referred to as the body of Christ, the different parts and contributions, together
with the allocated resources, also need to be managed effectively and efficiently for the
organization to realize its intended goals and visions. The subsequent paragraphs will build the
case of why the church needs to be managed and will state why management can assist the
church to accomplish its mission. The arguments presented in this article will state the fact that
the church as a body (read organization) cannot escape the importance to be managed. The
drive to manage the church is not new but is in high demand due to the fast-changing global,
social, political and mobile environment. The church has to battle for its space in a market-
driven economy while it is also grabbling with its sustainable future (Lategan 2005). The point
driven home is that managing the church as an organization in line with sound management
principles and practices cannot be ignored. Although it is commonly acknowledged that
different churches and denominations deal with management in different ways, the universality
of management skills and principles still apply to the church as an organization in all its
different forms and contexts.

1. Biblical perspectives on the management of the church as an organization

As a faith-based organization (in other words, the social duty or activity of the church as an
organization is founded on the shared belief or faith of the members of the organization), the
church is unique in terms of, among others, a distinct origin, distinct message, distinct purpose,
distinct ethic, distinct reliance and a distinct mission. It is therefore important that the
uniqueness of the church as a faith-based organization needs to be upheld in the conversation
and interaction with management science.
Apart from the principles found in the Bible relating to the structure, function, organization
and mission of the church as a community of believers, the organization is also demarcated by
the external environment, context, confessions and traditions in which it stands.
Granting the uniqueness of the church as an organization, churches also have much in common
with the structure, function and organization of other organizations. Although some distinct
characteristics differentiate the church from any other organization, the church is still an
organization, sharing some common principles with other enterprises and therefore crying out
to be managed effectively and efficiently.
To support the argument that management science principles and skills do apply to the church
as an organization, it will be important to trace the understanding and practice of management
in the Bible and its specific reference to organized religious practice.

4
Oosthuizen, A. J. and Lategan, Lok. “Managing the household of God”: The contribution from management
sciences to the sustainability of the church as an organization. STJ [online]. 2015, 1/2 [cited 2021-08-03],
pp.551-568. Available from: <http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-
94672015000200028&lng=en&nrm=iso>. ISSN 2413-9467. http://dx.doi.org/10.17570/STJ.2015.V1N2.A26.

~9~
Although there are many references to management in the Old Testament, the focus will
primarily be on defining manager/management by identifying passages in the New Testament
relating to the understanding of "management" within the framework of management science
today. The reason for this is that in the Old Testament temple and society are interwoven. The
church is a typical New Testament structure and functions already there in a differentiated
societal system.
Because management science is engaging with the church as an organization, the article is not
an attempt to do exegesis on all the relevant passages, but rather to define a Biblical
understanding of concepts within the context of the Bible. The reason for a New Testament
focus is that although the church, as concept and structure, may originate from the Old
Testament's concept of the people of God (qahal JHWH) it is essentially a New Testament
development.

2. Management in the New Testament

Two passages are extracted as examples of how the concept of management is used within a
Biblical context. “A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the
responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them.” (Matthew 24:45).
“… but if a man does not know how to manage his household, how will he take care of the
church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5).
Although the context of these two passages is different, it is striking that, in both examples,
"managing" is used in combination with the term or concept "the household", thus managing
the household. This needs further exploitation.

a. Manage
The reason for the combination of the two terms (management and household) lies in the
morphological meaning of the word οἰκονόμος (oikonomos). A clearer understanding of the
meaning of oikonomos will help to define and understand church management within the
context of the New Testament.
Oikonomos cognates from “oikos” and “nemo”:
 Oikos has the meaning of “house or household”
 Nemo in combination with oikos means “to manage”
Thus, oikonomos literately means “household-manager”
Oikonomos is translated differently throughout the New Testament, according to the context in
which it functions. It is commonly translated as steward, servant, manager, superintendent,
chamberlain, governor, householder and even treasurer to whom the head of the house has
entrusted the management of his affairs, namely to take care of receipts and expenditures and
to share out the proper portion to every servant.

To identify some of the different applications of oikonomos, a summary of some texts are given
(Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek 2011):

~ 10 ~
  The manager of a farm or estate, an overseer: Luk.12:42; 1Co.4:2; Gal.4:2.
 The superintendent of the city’s finances, the treasurer of the city: Luk.16:1,3,8; ὁ
οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως, (Vulgate: arcarius civitatis).
 The treasurers of kings: Rom.16:23.
 Metaphorically, the apostles and other Christian teachers are called οἰκονόμους
μυστηρίων τοῦ Θεοῦ (managers of the mystery of God) -1Co.4:1.
 A bishop (or overseer) is called οἰκονόμος Θεοῦ, overseer of the Christian theocracy,
hereby declaring the managerial role the office of bishop has within the church: Tit.1:7.
 All Christians who rightly use the gifts entrusted to them by God for the good of their
fellow Christians belong to the class called καλοί οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος Θεοῦ
(managers of the grace of God): 1Pe.4:10.
Oikonomos has a practical as well as spiritual meaning and application. It is interesting to note
that there is also reference to different levels of authority and even delegation of responsibility
in the Bible when it comes to the managers of the household (1 Pet 2:18, Mt 20:1, Mt 24:45).
In the context of the New Testament, there often was a clear line of authority within social
structures: managers, servants and labourers. Jesus delegated authority to His disciples and
eventually to the church where ministers, elders and deacons were appointed to help with
management and leadership within the household. It is evident that, from a Biblical point of
view, the manager is someone entrusted with the responsibility to serve, lead and oversee
projects or actions and protect or look after the people that are entrusted to them.

b. Household
The common meaning of a household is that of a family or even extended family, including
housemates and servants (Acts 16:31, Acts 18:8 and Rom: 16:10). Within a Biblical context, a
household also has the collective meaning of a community of faith or the church as defined as
a group of believers (Gal 6:10, Eph 2:19, 1 Pet 4:17, 1 Tim 3:12 and 1 Tim 3:15).
In these passages, a direct comparison is drawn between the family as a household and the
household of God. A church resembles a family. It is indeed larger but also consists of an
assemblage of brothers and sisters who are bound together by the same goal and purpose with
common feelings and needs. Therefore, when there is a reference to managing the household
of God, it refers to the members of the family as well as to everything else needed for the well-
being and sustainability of the family, i.e. finance, administration, resources, maintenance and
protection.
For managing this household with all its different facets, caretakers, leaders or managers are
appointed. Interestingly enough, apart from the formal appointment of leaders and managers,
each member of the household is also given a very specific place, responsibility and function
or role based on the gifts received (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12, 14). These responsibilities are given to
accomplish the common goal.
The shared responsibility of the leaders as well as the members of the household is threefold:
i. towards the Head of the church (Jesus Christ)
ii. towards other members of the family of Christ (the church)

~ 11 ~
 iii. towards those not yet members (people outside the church).
The household of God has well-stipulated principles and rules on how it should function. These
rules are founded on the services and responsibilities laid upon the household as well as
Christian ethics and are defined in terms of the context and church tradition in which it stands.
Reinterpretation of the application of the principles and rules is an ongoing activity necessitated
by an ever-changing context. Take, for example, the position of women, their dress code and
stipulated behaviour in the organization (1 Tim 2:9) that needs to be interpreted in terms of
ancient traditions and societal understanding of the roles of men and women in the
congregation. One example of how Christian ethics define how the church as an organization
is managed is the great command to love one another as yourself. This command implies a
certain way in which a manager acts, leads, interacts and communicates with people and deals
with conflict. Rules and principles are laid down, for example, in terms of conflict between
members (Mt 18), court cases between Christians (1 Cor 6) and the rights and duties of apostles
in terms of remuneration (1 Cor 9). The application of these rules and principles define the
unique manner in which the church needs to be managed.
From the Biblical understanding of “household,” it is clear that a household resembles a group
of people or a family bound together by a common goal and purpose. The management of this
household is not only the formal responsibility given to different caretakers, leaders, or
managers, but it is also the responsibility of each member to accomplish the common goal,
based on the gifts the different members received. In pursue of its goals, the household
functions on well-stipulated principles and rules that demarcate the way the household
operates.

c. Qualifications of Managers
Some standards and qualifications need to be met when someone wants to become a manager
of the household of God.
Take for example 1 Timothy 3:1-7 as a point of reference. As it is evident that Timothy was to
be partly employed in the appointment of suitable officers for the church in Ephesus, and as
the kinds of officers referred to were to be permanent in the structures of the church, a full
statement needed to be put on record, respecting their qualifications and duties. The standards
and qualifications of a bishop or manager for the household were set out as follows:
 She/he must be someone of good character - (1Tim.3:2-3).
 She/he must manage her/his household well and, by doing so, show that s/he has some
managerial skills and is qualified to manage the household of God - (1Ti.3:4-5).
 She/he must have experience and be of suitable age - (1 Tim 3:6).
 She/he must have a fair reputation among others to be influential - (1 Tim 3:7).
A great responsibility is put on being a manager of the household of God. This responsibility
holds for the character as well as the experience and reputation of the manager to manage the
household of God.

~ 12 ~
 V. CHURCH CONSTITUTION5

1. A Church Constitution?
Most people might not even realize that churches have a constitution and these constitutions
may contain their bi-laws and policies. These are intended for the good of the membership
because it protects the members from false accusations or being dis-fellowshipped for
unbiblical reasons or from any one person becoming too powerful in the church. A church’s
constitution can safeguard the integrity of leaders while expressing the will of the congregation
while giving both guidance, principles, and procedures to follow so that there are certain
expectations for everyone in the church. These constitutions give guidelines on church
discipline, when it is necessary or if it is necessary but it also covers moral issues where
members who profess faith in Christ yet live in sexual immorality or are customarily breaking
the laws. Members who live in such a way without repentance cannot continue in the
membership of the church because of the biblical command to abstain from such behaviour or
face the possibility of church discipline being taught in the Bible. In some cases, it could lead
to the member(s) being dis-fellowshipped, if necessary.

2. Order in the Church

This is not our church nor is it any man or woman’s church. This is the church of Jesus Christ
that He promised He would build and the gates of hell won’t stop it (Matt 16:18). He is the
Chief Cornerstone of the church, along with the Apostles and Prophets who are part of the
foundation. We are simply the living stones being built upon it, but there is always the necessity
to have order, clarity, and not chaos. The Apostle Paul wrote that “all things should be done
decently and in order” (1st Cor 14:40) “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace [just]
as in all the churches of the saints” (1st Cor 14:33). Some churches may have amendments in
their constitution or even bylaws that have specific applications for anything from ensuring
that male staff never meet with female staff members alone or that the pastor cannot meet with
another woman unless another woman or his wife is present. These bylaws protect those who
receive counselling but they also protect those who give counsel.

3. Statement of Beliefs
If someone doesn’t find the church’s statement of beliefs, they had better write one right away
and you can do that just by opening your Bible. The church needs to be clear that they hold to
the essentials in the faith such as in Jesus is the Only Way to be saved (Acts 4:12), that Jesus
was both Man and God (John 1:1-2, 14), that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord and
professes Him by name can be saved (Rom 10:9-13), that there is nothing we can do to earn
salvation since it is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9) and other things like the sinless-ness of Christ,
the divinity of Christ, the need for repentance and faith (Mark 1:15), and many other such
things. There might even be a mission statement of faith in the church’s constitution.

5
Jack Wellman, Should A Church Have A Constitution? https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2016/
03/22/should-a-church-have-a-constitution/

~ 13 ~
4. The Importance of a Constitution
I believe it is critical that the church constitution clearly and unequivocally state what the
church believes as a body and as a matter of Biblical faith. The constitution should clearly state
what the expectations for the church are. They should contain the written expectations for
church leadership and what procedures should be followed under given circumstances. These
are for the protection of membership and leadership. The constitution is to ensure that no one
individual or individuals can take control of the church and use it for their benefit or purposes.
It keeps the church checking itself and the membership knowing what their responsibilities,
and can keep the church organized in a manner where everyone’s expectations are clear.

In conclusion, the church doesn’t have a constitution, ask them why they don’t. Surely they
have some sort of bylaws in place that should have principles, applications, and guidance for
the church leadership and church membership. Without organization and structure, the church
is on shaky ground and could find itself in trouble, being given to great liabilities due to neglect
of unforeseen circumstances.

5. Items should be included in a Church Constitution6

There is nothing about church constitutions in the New Testament. The need for church
constitutions arose due to legal issues. Churches may be incorporated, own property, hire staff,
pay some kinds of taxes and be exempt from others, and run other ministries that may or may
not be similarly tax-exempt or have a different level of legal protection than the church itself.
A constitution is a legal document that gives the church direction in ministry and protection
from lawsuits. If the church documents what it is, what it does, and why it does it, and then
follows the plan consistently, it will have more legal protection as well as a unified focus.
Since there is nothing in the New Testament about constitutions, what should be included is a
matter of opinion and expediency. That said, here are the most common parts of a church
constitution:
a. Purpose Statement: This part of the church constitution should not only be biblically
accurate but also legally astute. As long as the church acts consistently within its purpose,
it will have less exposure to legal attacks.
b. Doctrinal Statement: This important part of the church constitution should clearly and
simply outline what the church believes about key doctrines, including the church’s
teaching on God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, etc. Following modern legal advice,
many churches also include statements on cultural hot topics such as gay marriage, divorce
and remarriage, sexual harassment, etc. While it would be much simpler to say, “We
believe the Bible,” clarification about what the church believes the Bible teach is helpful
because there can be much disagreement on key doctrines, even among people who say
they simply believe what the Bible says.

6
Got Questions Ministries, What items should be included in a church constitution?
https://www.gotquestions.org/church-constitution.html

~ 14 ~
c. Membership Requirements: The church constitution should clearly define who is a
member of the church and what rights and responsibilities come with membership. There
should also be a statement about the process of church discipline (see Matthew 18:15–20).
In today’s legal climate, church members can sue churches over discipline issues.
d. Leadership Roles: The church constitution should clearly define the roles of church
leaders, how those leaders are chosen, and how they are removed, if necessary. The
constitution should be clear about who has the final human authority for making decisions:
the congregation, a board of elders, etc.
e. Procedural/Legal Issues: With so many issues of church and state in flux today, the church
has to be very careful about how it interacts with non-members. If the church allows non-
members to rent its building for weddings, how will it respond when it gets a request for a
homosexual wedding? If the church allows other organizations to use its facilities for
meetings or community activities, can it deny usage by a group that is at cross purposes
with the church? Will the church hire non-members or even unbelievers for any positions?
If so, what are the lifestyle requirements for those employees? What are the requirements
for staff or volunteers working with children? There should be consistent, coherent
positions that align with the church’s stated purpose. If a church rents its chapel for
weddings simply to raise money, it will have a hard time justifying its decision to reject a
gay couple. If the church rents its chapel as a way to help couples who belong to other
churches of like faith, then the church has some justification for being selective.
f. Provision for Amendments: As the church grows and times change, new challenges will
arise that may need to be addressed in the church constitution. When that time comes, how
will the constitution be changed? The constitution itself should detail a procedure for
making amendments.

VI. CHURCH LEADERS7

The assumption that basic management principles are not incorporated sufficiently and
successfully within the church as an organization has to be found at the source, which is the
formal theological training of church leaders. It is expected that, if sound managerial principles
were important for the church in all its different facets and structures, it would formally be
incorporated within the education of its ministers to lead and manage churches effectively and
efficiently.
Very few formal or academic studies were found in which recent managerial skills and business
principles were integrated within the organization of churches in the South-African context.
Hendriks (2004) advocates the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach within formal
academic and even informal theology education. He states, “… the church should participate
in the academic intellectual aspects of theology. Theology must not be done alone in splendid

7
Oosthuizen, A. J. and Lategan, Lok. “Managing the household of God”: The contribution from management
sciences to the sustainability of the church as an organization. STJ [online]. 2015, 1/2 [cited 2021-08-03.

~ 15 ~
isolation.” This underlines the importance of a systems view even when it comes to educating
ministers. Hendriks (2004:33) argues as follows:
“Theology should be multi-disciplinary as far as it should relate to other disciplines when
addressing issues that confront us. This does not mean that theology has to compromise its
normative element.”
Burger (1995) acknowledges that the church does not differ much from other organizations and
can learn from the social sciences, for example, organizational culture and management
science. He also states that it is already evident that increasing numbers of church leaders are
influenced by publications of well-known businesspersons. The lessons taken from these
publications are incorporated into their ministry.
The various theological faculties at Universities, Bible Schools and Institutions in South Africa
all accept and adopt an inter-disciplinary approach incorporating sciences such as psychology,
law, philosophy, information technology and drama and speech. However, sufficient formal
scientific engagement with and incorporation of management science is lacking in the
education of pastors as managers of the household of God. Often, managing the church is left
to the character, personality and instinct of pastors and is practised as an art (Kumar & Sharma
2000:11, Weihrich, 1993), without the science and organized knowledge of management
underlying the practice.
In a fast-changing environment, the church cannot afford not to engage formally and
scientifically with management science to equip leaders with the necessary skills and principles
to manage the church as an organization effectively and efficiently in the future. Leaving
church leaders to rely on own instinct and untested management practices will simply be
irresponsible and will end in organizational suicide.
However, there still is reluctance by the church to engage with management science. According
to Hunter (2000:23), there are two negative reactions to the idea of church management. They
are the following:
1. The church is different and is run on spiritual principles.
2. Ministers are leaders and not managers.
For church leaders to understand the importance and accept the necessity of basic managerial
skills and business principles within the church as an organization, a fundamental
understanding of the relationship between management principles and a Biblical understanding
of leadership and management is needed. To show the relevance of management science for
the church, the negative reactions and prejudices will be refuted by an understanding and
insight into Biblical church management.

1. Spiritual Principles versus Scientific Principles

Some church leaders resist insights from the literature of management science on
organizational effectiveness because they say the church is different. “Different” is then often
qualified by claiming that the church is not an organization. Proponents of this view argue that

~ 16 ~
the church is an organism - the body of Christ - and we are called to run the church on spiritual
principles, not on the principles of business and the corporate world.
There are three contentious views in this statement:
a. The distinction between organization and organism is refuted by the definition of
management amongst others, as a system interacting with various other systems
(Schermerhorn 2010:41, Morgan 2006). The systems approach, theory and school of
thought use organization, system and even the term organism in relationship to one
another. Describing the church as an organism, therefore, does not make the church
distinct or unique from other organizations.
b. The uniqueness of the church as a faith-based organization is openly acknowledged and
respected, even within management science itself, when the church is commonly
referred to and categorized as non-profitable and faith-based (Drucker 2011). Within
this definition, the uniqueness of the church as an organization of faith is acknowledged
and even described within management terminology. The uniqueness of the church as
a faith-based organization does not, therefore, imply that basic managerial principles
do not apply to the organization of the church. Just as the finance of a church is done
based on basic financial principles, other functions within the church should also be run
according to the principles of that function, for example, personnel, allocation of
resources and planning.
c. The perspective that the church is a “spiritual” organization that can only be governed
spiritually and not in a “worldly” manner does contain a crucial theological
discrepancy.
Early Christianity was influenced by a Greek philosophical approach called Gnosticism.
Gnosis means knowledge. In essence, Gnosticism can be described as a dualism with the view
that the world consists of two fundamental entities, God and the world, correspondingly man
and the world. For this reason, Gnostics believed that matter, in particular the human body, is
evil and should be avoided and that man's greatest purpose is to focus on spiritual things,
practising this dualistic distinction in every aspect of human life (Churton 2005).
For this reason, Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus Christ, as the incarnation of God, did
not really take on human flesh and therefore could not have suffered on the cross. The Council
of Nicaea in 325 AD branded this view as heresy and insisted on the full humanity of Christ,
stating that Jesus Christ was indeed “begotten, not made man,” “was crucified,” “suffered death
and was buried.”
The claim that Jesus’ body was illusory is commonly referred to as Docetism. Hunter (2000)
uses Docetism and applies it to the church as an organism forming the somewhat strange
concept of a “docetic ecclesiology.” By this, he means the following (Hunter 2000:24):
“As the old Docetism claimed that Jesus’ body was not a real human body, though
it appeared to be, docetic ecclesiology maintains that the church, the Body of Christ,
is not a real human organization, though it appears to be. An orthodox doctrine of
the church, however, would affirm the church's full humanity. As Jesus' body was
a real human body - as any physician checking for a pulse or a blood pressure

~ 17 ~
 reading could have affirmed - so the Body of Christ is a real human organization,
reflecting many of the same dynamics and managed by many of the same principles
we find in other organizations.”
Therefore, the assumption that the church is a spiritual organization and cannot be managed on
(so-called secular or worldly) managerial principles is in essence not a practical-theological
discrepancy but a deeply rooted misinterpretation of the full humanity of the local church.
Although the church has a unique character, mission, source and culture, it was, is and always
will be a real human organization pleading for sound management.

2. Leaders versus Managers

The second substantial negative reaction surfaces from church leaders who claim, “I am not a
manager. I am a leader.” Although it is well documented, the distinction between leaders,
managers, and administrators needs explanation.
In the literature of leadership, management and administration, these three terms are all unique
in their meaning but also intertwined and interwoven within the general organization of any
organization. Take for example the understanding of the difference between leadership and
management. Leadership is commonly described as envisioning future innovation, spending
time dreaming about long-term goals and expectations. This is supported by Bertocci (2009)
when he defines leadership as the combination of characteristics of personality traits in an
individual that compels that person to inspire others to achieve goals that they would not
normally accomplish without the leader's motivation. He then states that leaders in an
organization should have a clear mental picture of where the organization is, where the
organization needs to go, and how the organization is going to get there. An important attribute
of leadership is therefore to present a clear path for followers to take to accomplish a task or
goal. Thus, according to Bertocci (2009:7), the main characteristic of leadership is the
following:
“… leaders instinctively seem to know what needs to be done, when it needs to be
done, and how it is going to be accomplished; and they get followers to work
together to complete the tasks necessary to accomplish the goal.”
Kotter (1990) also notes that leadership is about vision, big-picture issues, change and the
future. Management, in contrast, is about personnel issues, organizational design and structure,
staffing, control and human resources issues. Kozak (1998) supports this by stating that
managers deal with systems, processes, budgets, equipment and “things” whilst leaders deal
with visions and people.
There is a distinction between leadership and management based on functions. Leaders
visualize what has to be done, mentally develop a clear path to accomplish the change in the
situation and then communicate what has to be done to their followers. Managers, on their part,
have to plan, organize, structure and evaluate or control (Bertocci 2009:12).
Hunter (2000:26) applies the distinction between leadership, management and administration
to the context of the church as follows:

~ 18 ~
 “A leader communicates the church's vision, purpose, and direction and mobilizes
people's energy in support of it. A manager deploys people (and resources), through
specific roles, jobs, and tasks, to achieve the mission's purpose and sees to it that
the organization permits and helps the people to succeed. An administrator
facilitates the workflow of the organization and attends to its efficiency. The
obsession of the first role is direction, the second is effectiveness, and the third is
efficiency.”
Although there is a clear distinction between leadership, management and administration,
successful organizations need all three functions (Kozak 1998). Dreams and visions
(leadership) need to be implemented in structures (management), and resources need to be
utilized effectively and efficiently (administration) in turning dreams into realities.
Therefore, the general assumption that ministers are leaders and not managers are refuted on
the scientific basis of the alternation and interaction of the three terms, leader, administrator
and manager. Within the managerial paradigm, any leader needs administrative and
management skills, and most pastors are in any case engaged in all three functions, therefore
refuting in practice the argument of leaders and managers.
There is often a shortcoming in the leadership and management skills of ministers in the church.
Some can envision the future but do not have the management or administrative skills to
structure or implement the vision. Others can let a governing board make decisions and are
successful in implementing and structuring those efforts but struggle to control and evaluate
efforts, therefore lacking administrative skills. Some churches are over-led and under-
managed. Others are over-administrated and under-led whilst others are over-managed but lack
leadership.
Hunter (2000:28) confirms this by stating the following about the church:
“[It] attracts a disproportionate number of people who can lead, but cannot (yet)
manage. This is a long-standing problem in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed,
this was the very problem that hounded Moses and the Israelites until Jethro stepped
in.”
This is the result of the absence of basic management knowledge and skills and the random,
non-factual reaction of ministers to set leadership against management and administration.
Better knowledge will bring an understanding of the necessity and interaction of leadership,
administration and management in the different levels of the organization, bringing a holistic
approach to management science within the church as an organization.

Bibliography
Bertocci, D. I. 2009. Leadership in organizations: There is a difference between leaders and managers.
New York: University Press of America.
Churton, T 2005. Gnostic Philosophy: From ancient Persia to modern times. Rochester, VA: Inner
Traditions.
Drucker, P. F. 2011. Managing the non-profit organization. New York: Butterworth-Heineman.

~ 19 ~
Dyck, B & Neubert, M 2008. Management: Current practices and new directions. Boston: Cengage
Learning.
Goleman, D 2011. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review's 10 Must-Read on Leadership.
1:1-22.
Hendriks, J. H. 2004. Studying congregations in Africa. Wellington: Lux Verbi.
Hunter, G. 2000. Leading and managing a growing church. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Kotter, J. P. 1990. What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. July:104-111.
Kozak, D. C. 1998. Leadership. Gannon University Magazine. Winter:2-7.
Kumar, A & Sharma, R 2000. Business management. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
Lategan, L. O. K. 2004. Remarks on the church in the consumer society. Acta Theologica 24(2):68-79.
Lexicon, Thayer's Greek. 2011. Biblesoft Inc. http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ greek/KJV/
[Online] [Accessed: 20 February 2012] From Morgan, G 2006. Images of organization.
London: Sage Publications.
Rainey, H. G. 2009. Understanding and managing public organizations: Essential texts for non-profit
and public leadership and management. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Schermerhorn, J. 2010. Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Weihrich, H. 1993. Management: Science, theory, and practice. San Francisco: University of San
Francisco.

~ 20 ~