In looking at the System Theory of church administration, how does church long range planning relate to organization structures inclusive of the combination of human, physical, and spiritual resources, the church influences, the political structure and polity of the church, and the processes the church uses.
Some examples of organizational structure are:
(1) Board of Trustees
(2) Deacon Board
(3) Board of Christian Education.
(4) Board of finance
(5) Board of Missions and Evangelism
(6) Board of christian education.
Please provide in depth detail information on how long rang planning relates to the transforming system.
Also, please provide a list of books regarding this topic for future use.
A system theory is quite simple. It deals with the mutual interaction of complimentary functions. In church life, this becomes more complex, since it deals also with the balance between the spiritual and the physical, as well as the local and universal. This means that parishes are complex systems - the whole is always greater than its parts.
One of the central issues in church design and planning is its organizational structure. These institutions and committees are not seen as ends in themselves, but as manifestations of the deeper unity of church membership. The concept of planning is the integration of parish functions within a larger whole. This whole is the church as a whole, that is, its dogmatic or canonical structure, the needs of the local community, and the life of the parish as expressed through its tradition (Schmemann, 1959).
More specifically, the concept of church structure is meant to maintain the balance between charismatic authority, that is, holiness and the direct intervention of God, and the institutional authority, or the actual, physical structure of the church body. the participation of the laity in committee. In this case, the laity has authority over both the property of the parish as well as the hiring of clergy. This authority, usually, is shared with the local bishop or metropolitan, depending on the jurisdiction (Kormos, 2010).
Several points immediately present themselves:
1. In reality, there is no real division among the committees that make up a church body. They exist for administration convenience. There is no separation between laity and clergy. The differently committees that govern a church have different functions, and yet, serve the same end. Membership in this structure revolves around service and responsibility.
2. The church is similar to the human body: many organs united in a singe organism. The model is mutual dependence and service.
3. Integrity or completeness is the final concept. The church can never be described or understood in organizational terms whatsoever. This might be a material foundation, but of itself, it is mere bureaucracy (Austin, 2009 and Ferencz, 2006)
There is a close correlation between the organizational structure of the church and church growth. Small parishes can get away with far fewer formal organizations. As the church grows, things like income and clerical stipends become significant. A greater division of labor is required. As the church grows, so does the need for formal structure (Austin, 2009).
There are two models: clerical and trustee. These are extreme, ideal types that are both problematic. The first is the removal of the laity from church control, with the result that bishops and priests control the functioning of the parish. The trustee system is a decentralized, committee-based structure that fosters competition and suspicion. It is the lay domination of the parish that treats the priest or minister as a hired hand. These are both ...
The solution discusses the system theory of church administration.