Principles Based Governance

Principles based governance helps our congregation fulfill our mission statement (Know Christ, Live Christ, and Make Christ Known) by working well together through appropriately delegated responsibility.  A set of clear principles (see below) structure the work of the governing board—a 7-member elected representation from the congregation. The governing board listens to and represents the congregation, guides the operations of the church through policies and limitations, and facilitates future planning.  The governing board delegates operational responsibility to the staff, held accountable through one (or more) operational authority (a pastor or executive director). This gives our pastors, staff, and volunteers freedom to carry out their work, supporting that work with regular checks and limitations that ensure responsibilities are being met.

Principles based governance will help our congregational membership focus more on mission and ministry.  It will also smooth out operational decisions and enhance our ability to do future planning.  Instead of having multiple groups competing for operational influence, this governance provides a clear structure of responsibility for the voters, the governing board, the pastor and staff, and the volunteer members of the ministry.  This will also protect the operational integrity and accountability of the church.

The pastor is responsible for making sure the church’s operations get done, not for doing every job himself. He leads a team of staff and volunteers who take responsibility for their areas and report back to him. He follows up and remains accountable to the board for the results.

Having a clear understanding of who he answers to can also save him time. For this work, he answers to one board with agreed, written expectations, rather than several groups giving separate instructions. He does not need to attend every team meeting or seek repeated approval for decisions already entrusted to him.

The board supports him by listening to and representing the congregation’s voice, guiding operations through policies and limitations, and facilitating future planning. Sharing the work with the staff and volunteers and simplifying decision-making help protect time for preaching, teaching, and caring for people.

The board serves the congregation, not the other way around. The board must listen to members and answer to the congregation for its work. The board would not run the church’s everyday ministries, but rather guides pastor through policies and limitations. Pastors and staff would make operational decisions that align with those policies and limitations, relying also on input from advisory committees and congregation members.

While fewer people would serve on the governing board, that does not mean fewer people would make all the decisions. The board would focus on governance through written policies, accountability, and future planning. Our pastors, staff, and volunteers would continue making the daily ministry decisions within those policies, relying on feedback and collaboration from members of the congregation.

The congregation would elect the board, retain authority over important decisions such as the annual budget and pastoral calls, and hold the board accountable. The governing board serves as a representative of the congregation, not as a replacement for it. Clear responsibilities and accountability are essential to this model.

Absolutely. Listening to members is an essential part of the board’s job, not an optional extra. Conversations, small groups, townhalls, and surveys can help the board understand what our church family and neighbors need. In fact, this model of governance intentionally cultivates more of the congregation’s voice and ministry engagement.

Clear expectations, regular reports, and follow-through. The pastor regularly reports to the governing board on the operational work of the congregation, demonstrating how that work remains faithful to the policies and limitations set by the board. The board checks those reports and follows up when something needs correction. The board also has rules for its own conduct and answers to the congregation.

The voters would continue to approve the annual budget. Spending would follow clear written limits, and the board would receive regular reports showing money received and spent. Regular independent audits would provide an additional check of the financial records. The auditor would not be a board member or someone who manages the church’s money. The board would receive the findings and follow up on any problems. These checks help protect the congregation’s gifts and the people entrusted to handle them.

Our LCMS confessions and our mission remain at the center. The purpose is to support the people who teach, lead worship, visit members, care for families, and serve our neighbors. We want to strengthen that work and make room for new opportunities.

In this model, the Board of Elders would focus on caring for our church family alongside the pastor: praying with people, visiting members, helping with worship, and supporting the pastor and his family. The governing board would handle formal oversight of the pastor’s responsibilities. This gives Elders a clear role centered on relationships and spiritual care.

This model would change some of the governing responsibilities currently assigned to the elders, but it would not diminish the importance of their ministry. Their role in supporting our pastors, providing spiritual care, and serving the congregation remains important. Our goal is to strengthen the elders' ministry by allowing them to focus more fully on serving and caring for the congregation.

There would be more opportunities to serve through short-term projects that fit your gifts and schedule, without committing to a one- to three-year board term. Each project would have a clear goal, a set time frame, and a way to tell whether the goal was achieved. You would know from the start what you’re being asked to do and when your commitment ends.

The ten principles work together to clarify responsibility, support ministry, and maintain accountability.

1. The board serves the congregation. Its authority comes from the voters, and it remains accountable to them. Listening to the congregation is an essential part of its work.

2. The board is responsible for governance. It guides the church through policies and limitations, delegates operational responsibility, and remains accountable for the responsibilities it delegates.

3. The board speaks with one voice. Decisions belong to the board as a whole, not to individual members. Its agreed direction is expressed in writing rather than through separate instructions from different members.

4. The board identifies what the ministry should accomplish. Written “Ends” policies describe the intended benefits of our ministry, whom it serves, and the resources and priorities associated with those benefits.

5. The board puts its own responsibilities in writing. Policies explain how the board conducts its work, delegates authority, and holds itself and its operational leadership accountable.

6. The board sets limitations without taking over operations. It identifies practices that are unacceptable, leaving the pastor and staff freedom to determine how best to carry out the work within those limitations.

7. Policies move from general to specific. The board begins with broad expectations and adds detail only as needed. The purpose is to provide clarity without unnecessarily restricting ministry.

8. Each responsibility has a clear point of accountability. Operational leadership is ordinarily delegated through the pastor. The board does not separately assign the same authority to other people or groups.

9. Those given responsibility may reasonably interpret the policies. The pastor applies the policies governing operations, while the board chair applies those governing the board’s work. Neither is limited to the personal preferences of individual board members.

10. Accountability is measured against the written expectations. Regular reports and other checks demonstrate whether the intended outcomes are being achieved within the limitations. These expectations provide the basis for evaluating the pastor’s operational responsibilities.

Yes. The governing board establishes the expected outcomes and limitations. The pastor and staff determine how to accomplish the work and demonstrate that those expectations are being met. The following are illustrations, not policies Faith has adopted.

Christian education: An Ends policy might state that children, youth, and adults grow in their understanding of Scripture and the Christian faith. The pastor, staff, and education volunteers would develop classes, select materials, and prepare teachers. The pastor’s report could include participation, examples of what participants are learning, and needs that remain to be addressed. The board would review progress toward the policy, rather than choose the curriculum or plan the classes. The congregation could also provide feedback through designed mechanisms such as conversation, small groups, townhalls, and surveys.

Budget and spending: A limitation might prohibit spending beyond the annual budget approved by the voters. The pastor and staff would manage ministry expenses within that budget and the written financial limitations. Reports would compare actual income and spending with the budget. If a limitation were exceeded, the pastor would explain what happened and present a plan for correction. The board would evaluate that response and follow up, rather than take over paying bills or approving routine purchases.

Hiring an office employee: A limitation might prohibit hiring without verifying qualifications and providing clear, written job responsibilities. The pastor and appropriate staff would conduct the search and select the employee within the approved budget. A monitoring report would demonstrate that the hiring followed the written requirements. The board would check that the requirements were met, rather than function as the hiring committee. The staff could form an advisory committee of qualified members of the congregation to sit in on the interviews.

Our current model involves many boards and committees with responsibilities for church operations. When those responsibilities overlap or are not clearly defined, important ministry decisions can take considerable time as questions move between groups. It can be difficult to know who makes a decision, who carries it out, and who is accountable for the result.

Faith has also struggled for many years to fill all its board chair positions, with many remaining vacant for extended periods. Long-term board commitments can make participation difficult for members who could otherwise serve through shorter, more specific projects that fit their gifts and availability.

Each board naturally gives particular attention to the ministry entrusted to it. While that focus is valuable, the structure can give more attention to the needs of individual ministries than to the priorities of the congregation as a whole. It also asks members who are well qualified to lead a particular ministry to take on church-wide governance, which requires different preparation and a broader scope of responsibility.

Principles-based governance distinguishes these responsibilities so that pastors, staff, and volunteers can focus on leading and carrying out ministry. The governing board listens to and represents the congregation, guides the operations of the church through policies and limitations, and facilitates future planning. The purpose is to build on the faithful service of our leaders and volunteers, make participation more accessible, and help ministry decisions move forward with clear responsibility and a shared focus on Faith’s mission.

The decision to adopt a governance model belongs to the congregation, with the guidance and participation of our pastors. Governance was discussed with the pastor we have called during his interview, and he expressed strong support for this approach. Continuing the work now gives our congregation time to consider the model and develop clear responsibilities and expectations for our pastors, staff, and volunteers. Our goal is to provide a structure that supports Faith’s mission and ministry, both during this pastoral transition and for the years ahead.

Yes, please do! Talk with a Governance Committee member: Elissa Grotefendt, Bill Fuller, Tom Geyer, Joe Miller, Rick Schmidt, or David Wright, about this approach. We welcome your questions, ideas, and honest concerns. We will discuss new questions together and publish our agreed answers here so everyone receives the same information. Writing down our answers keeps us clear and consistent without closing the door to conversation.

No. The Church Council authorized a committee to explore this model and determine how it might work at Faith. Developing proposed policies is an important part of that exploration. It allows us to better understand the model, evaluate how it would function in our congregation, and identify areas that may need additional consideration.

Throughout this process, we are working with our consultant, Tim Kurth, gathering input from members, and considering both the opportunities and challenges involved. The committee will ultimately present its recommendations to the congregation. The decision to adopt changes to our governing structure belongs to the Voters' Assembly, not the committee.

Faith has accomplished a great deal under our current structure, thanks to the faithful service of our pastors, staff, elected leaders, and volunteers. We are not considering change because our current system has failed, but because we believe there may be a better way to organize our leadership and support our ministry.

Our current Constitution and Bylaws establish the authority of the voters' assembly and Church Council. However, with operational responsibilities distributed among numerous boards, officers, pastors, and staff, the process for making decisions is not always as clear as it could be.

For example, there can be different expectations about who should be consulted, who has the authority to make a particular decision, and who is responsible for carrying it out. Even when everyone is acting in good faith and referencing our governing documents, these differences in expectations can create confusion, frustration, and unnecessary disagreements.

Principles-based governance seeks to address this by establishing a clear and consistent relationship between authority, responsibility, and accountability.  Our goal is not necessarily to make decisions faster, but to create a structure in which everyone understands their responsibilities, leadership is held accountable, and more of our time and energy can be devoted to the ministry of the church.

Here are a couple of examples of current processes that would be improved with a new governance structure.

Setting the annual budget

In the past, each individual board (Elders, Hospitality, Outreach, Youth, etc) would be responsible for setting their portion of the budget. This put considerable pressure on lay leaders who were not involved in the day-to-day operations of the church. Recently, our church staff have been assisting in this process, with much success. The business manager and pastor have facilitated conversations about the budget, meeting with each staff member, board chair, council officer, and other members to help ascertain needs. The result has been a more accurate and efficient accounting of needs, and much less stress and pressure on the elected council chair, vice chair, and treasurer. This new practice reflects what would be standard in principle-based governance.

Christian Education

In the past, the Board of Education set the schedule of classes, recruiting teachers and handling communication. This put considerable pressure on lay leaders who were not involved in the day-to-day operations of the church. Recently, our church staff have been assisting in this process. The Board of Education makes important recommendations to the church staff about topics, teachers, and structure. The staff receive these recommendations and then implement best practices. This puts much less stress and pressure on the Board of Education, allowing them to more effectively use their gifts and influence. This new practice reflects what would be standard in principle-based governance.

Preschool

In the past, the Preschool Board was solely responsible for the operations of the preschool, including tuition, budget, staffing, and other important factors. This put considerable pressure on lay leaders who were not involved in the day-to-day operations of the preschool. Recently, our church staff have been managing this process. The Preschool Board makes important recommendations to the church staff about various aspects of the preschool. The staff receive these recommendations and then implement best practices. This puts much less stress and pressure on the Preschool Board, allowing them to more effectively use their gifts and influence. This new practice reflects what would be standard in principle-based governance.

Human Care

In the past, the Board of Human Care was solely responsible for the human care activities at Faith, including ministry partnerships, volunteer recruiting, and budgeting/invoicing. This put considerable pressure on lay leaders who were not involved in the day-to-day aspects of these human care needs. Recently, our church staff have been managing this process. The Board of Human Care makes important recommendations to the church staff about various aspects of human care ministry. The staff receive these recommendations and then implement best practices. This puts much less stress and pressure on the Board of Human Care and has enabled our church to more comprehensively engage in human care as a strategic value. This new practice reflects what would be standard in principle-based governance.

In each of these examples, one might consider who is recommending ideas and who is implementing operations.

Under our current board-based governance structure, operational responsibilities are divided among various boards, staff, and ministry leaders. Traditionally, staff have offered recommendations while board chairs have been responsible for overseeing and implementing decisions within their areas of ministry. In practice, however, we have already begun shifting many of these responsibilities to our staff, with positive results.

Principles-Based Governance would formalize this approach. Lay leaders would continue offering recommendations, sharing their expertise, and actively participating in ministry, while pastoral leadership and staff would oversee daily operations and coordinate the work of volunteers. This provides a clearer understanding of who makes decisions, who carries them out, and who is accountable for the results.

In many ways, we are already operating this way, even though our current governing documents assign responsibilities differently.

We absolutely can, and any proposed governance changes would require amendments to our existing governing documents.

The question is whether making individual adjustments to our current structure would adequately address the underlying challenges.

We could clarify the responsibilities of individual boards and officers, establish additional consultation requirements, or create more detailed procedures for particular decisions. These changes might resolve certain concerns. However, they could also leave us with the same underlying structure, requiring us to continually determine how various responsibilities and authorities overlap as new situations arise.

It would be difficult, and ultimately impractical, to write specific rules addressing every possible decision or circumstance that might arise in the life of our congregation.

Principles-based governance offers a different approach. Rather than attempting to anticipate every situation, it establishes clear, consistent principles defining who has authority, how that authority is delegated, what boundaries apply, and how accountability is maintained.

These principles are intended to work across different ministries, changing circumstances, and future generations of church leadership without requiring a new rule or approval process for every situation.

Every congregation has its own history, culture, and ministry needs. Principles-Based Governance provides a framework, but how it is applied must reflect the congregation it serves.

We recognize that successfully adopting this model requires more than writing new policies. It requires leaders who understand their responsibilities, a commitment to accountability, and continued training and support. As we explore this approach, we are considering these requirements along with Faith's particular needs and the concerns being raised by members of the congregation.

Our goal is not simply to adopt a new structure, but to determine whether it will better support Faith's mission and ministry in the years ahead.