Priority Determines Structure

I have come to believe the statement that “Priority determines structure.” I believe it is true for any organization, be it a church or a business. The priorities of the organization determine the structure of its management style. What it deems its most important priority will determine how the organization is run, and what it wants its people to spend most of their time doing.

Think of the typical church and ask the question: Can you tell its priority from its current structure? You can find out the answer to that by asking another question: What do its leaders spend most of their time and energy doing throughout the week? For most churches, I believe that its leaders spend the bulk of their leadership time and energy on issues of administration, solving crises of one sort or another, building maintenance and building planning issues, making sure that all the various ministries stay up and running, and planning and executing the Sunday (and possibly mid-week) services.

Now I’m not down on pastors or church leaders—don’t get me wrong. I think the point would be too easily made if I were to say, “The problem lies with the leadership of churches.” In some cases, that statement may be correct; but I wonder if more often than not, church leaders are merely living up (or down) to the expectations placed on them by the congregation itself? Are we trying to maintain some kind of status quo, or what?

When I look at Ephesians 4, it seems clear that the passage states that gifted church leadership—under the headship of Christ—are given to the church for one purpose: To equip the believers in order that they can go out and perform the works of ministry, and not only the leaders themselves. What is equipping? From my experience I believe it has to do with helping people identify who God made them to be; finding out what gifts, passions and strengths they have, and then enabling them to minister in that capacity.

The passage goes on to say that when this equipping happens, believers grow up and become mature and more like Christ. Further, when this dynamic occurs, the body of Christ grows and builds itself up in love. Growth happens to healthy organisms.

There seems to be a double whammy going on in churches. From the perspective of leadership, at times there is frustration because people don’t seem to want to get involved in anything, or put forth any effort whatever for ministry. I’ve been on this side before and it is genuinely frustrating. Why can’t people get off their butts and get involved in something, anything? So leaders are constantly strong-arming people to get them involved, or berating them from the pulpit about their lack of involvement in whatever.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the congregation, many people feel that they don’t want to get involved in any ministry because leadership has not presented anything all that compelling. Or, maybe they would get involved in a ministry, but they feel that they don’t have what it takes to do a good job. Again, it could be as well that we have such a consumer society that many people just want to sit, be served, and leave without doing anything in return.

My question is this: What would happen if churches decided completely to sell out to the Ephesians 4 paradigm and make equipping their people for ministry their sole priority? Never mind about starting up, and running, a bunch of ministries; never mind telling people to be more bold in their efforts to evangelize the world; no more starting up and running ministries on the basis of need.

I know it is a hypothetical question. But I believe that if equipping people—truly investing in their lives—were the sole priority of a church, then organic growth would happen. People would start ministries on the basis of intentionality, gifting and passions. Church members would not agree to be a part of a ministry for which they were not gifted and passionate about. Those in leadership would know what leadership is supposed to be about, and would devote their time and energy in helping others reach their potential.

I wonder: what would happen if churches decided to stop focusing on a strategy of “weakness management”—constantly telling people they need to work on their faults and weaknesses—and instead built on their strengths? People would find out that many of their weaknesses would take care of themselves.

And what about evangelism? If people were equipped to be the best body part they could be—not trying to be something they are not—what would happen? Be the best toe you can be! I believe that a person who lives their life with intentionality, focus and passion, who knows why they are doing what they are doing, is far more compelling in terms of evangelism than a person lamely trying to slip Bible verses into every conversational crack. And the irony is, that person probably feels like a miserable failure too. But that's what happens when a toe tries to be an eye.

The ultimate question is this: Can this change be accomplished? I believe it can, but then that leads to the next question: Are churches willing to pay the price associated with changing?