Pastors are not CEOs or managers and are not trained as such. While there may be some administrative tasks, their function is clearly defined in Article XXVIII, Timothy and Titus.
Exactly. This sounds like it deemphasizes doctrinal faithfulness. Pastors are trained to provide doctrinally faithfully preaching, catachesis, worship and pastoral care. The outcomes are in the hands of the Lord. It is required of a steward that they be faithful. The problem is we have lost faith in the power of the Word to achieve God's outcomes in our midst. Outcomes are in the hand of God. Focusing on outcomes rather then fidelity will inevitably lead to a lack of fidelity.
This true, but at the same time many men are arriving at parishes devoid of quality lay leadership. The new generation of pastors are going to need a crash course in business administration.
I have to rely upon the Biblical role of the pastor. I've heard it referred to as pastors and laity staying on their respective lanes. I recall having a conversation with a pastor regarding this topic. While he felt that he was a CEO I reminded him that his role is defined in the Bible and our Book of Concord. I would rather be angry at the trustees for not mowing the grass or clearing the snow than the pastor. Maintenance is the role defined for the trustees; not the pastor.
My church has adopted the policy based governance about 15 years ago. There is no accountability. We had to have a reduction in force not long ago that almost tore the place apart. In the past, the school board would be involved and they would be the ones to "take the heat". But with this model, it ultimately falls on the principal and lead pastor. How do you go to church after they eliminate your position or you have your hours cut to part time so they don't have to pay you insurance? What about if you feel there's a theological issue? No board of elders means you only have the option of dealing with the pastor. If the pastor is the person that approves nominations for the governing board seats, I guess you just find another church. Another issue is, the pastor can always take a call and leave. The congregation need to "run" the church and the pastor needs to be a pastor. We need less CEO's and more pastors
I have some experience working with private Christian schools that use the Carver model of governance. I've observed all of the problems described here.
One reason the Carver model can be especially troublesome for an organization in decline is that it can institutionalize and reinforce weak leadership, often because stronger leaders have already passed from the scene and the middling manager who occupies the executive role inherits it by default (or, in a church, by call). While the board focuses on drafting and revising policies and the executive focuses on checklists and morale management, no one leads.
I've been watching the downward spiral of a Carver model organization in real time over the past few years. I don't know why I'd recommend this model to the average congregation with a limited talent pool for the policy board and a pastor who lacks any organizational leadership experience outside of pastoring.
In my (albeit it limited) experience our churches just need leadership. Men willing to look at the situation and either determine it is too difficult to fix with the resources available or getting down to the hard business of dragging a church out of the mud. Maybe it still fails but at least if the basics are taken care of you can focus on the actual ministry which can help attract people.
The Carver Policy Governance model is NOT a theology. It is a governance framework designed to clarify roles, prevent micromanagement, and strengthen accountability. When thoughtfully adapted, it need not subordinate Scripture and the Confessions to management theory; rather, it can serve as a tool that allows congregations to focus more clearly on their mission.
Much of the critique assumes that Policy Governance necessarily redefines pastors as corporate CEOs or isolates them from brotherly correction. That outcome is not inherent to the model itself but depends on how it is implemented. In fact, Carver’s emphasis on clear delegation and defined accountability can prevent both pastoral overreach and board interference—two dynamics that often fuel conflict in congregations.
The concern that the model “insulates” leaders overlooks a key feature: regular, explicit monitoring against stated ends and limitations. Healthy monitoring is not bureaucratic abstraction; it is structured accountability. If a congregation defines its “Ends” theologically—faithful proclamation of Word and Sacrament, catechesis, mercy, and mission—then governance becomes a means of PROTECTING those priorities, not replacing them.
It is also worth noting that role confusion, informal power structures, and unclear authority frequently contribute to decline. In such settings, clarity can be liberating. The model does not generate relational health, but neither does any structure. Relational maturity, repentance, and reconciliation must be cultivated regardless of governance design.
Churches are not corporations. But they are organized bodies that steward resources, personnel, and public trust. A governance model that strengthens clarity and accountability need not bureaucratize the Office of the Ministry. Properly understood, it can free pastors to focus on spiritual leadership while boards faithfully exercise their governing responsibilities.
The real question is not whether Carver originated in nonprofit management, but whether a congregation can use structured governance in service to its confessional identity and mission. Used WISELY, it can.
As I began to read your article, as soon as I saw the acronym "LCEF" I knew what the problem would be. [I will, of course, go back and read the article!] You shall know them by their fruit, and as a family that was not treated as Christians should be treated (i.e. we were routinely lied-to), I think the writing is on the wall of what you'll by using anything the LCEF promotes. I was also bugged by the fact that the church services would be stopped in the middle of worshipping so that they could "advertise" about their investment offerings/etc. We were very blessed to pull our money out before things went south. Hate to say it, but... :I
Well I’m not sure, but in my case (very LONG, documented story) they kept delaying and delaying over distributing our funds, telling us they could only receive financial data via MAIL (and then telling us later, “Oh, you can just email all that to save time!”), to the BIG KICKER…the financial experts didn’t take enough taxes out of the Feds and THEN didn’t take ANY funds for our state. I took a penalty I shouldn’t have had to. But mileage may vary for other people…our family appear to be on a “Do Not Help List” that also applies to funeral homes, car dealerships, repairmen, etc. So “normal” people might not have any problems dealing with LCEF. Hope that helps! XD
As a pastor, many of us do more around the church than what's stated in our call documents. We do it because we love the congregation and want it to flourish. However, when this becomes a rule rather than an exception, a pastor robs his lay people of an opportunity to serve their Lord by employing the talents they've been given.
My role as a pastor is clearly defined and authorized by Scripture and the Confessions. So too is the role of the laity. Both should be compelled by the Spirit, not the law. When we all do our duty there is harmony, when we get out of balance the conflicts begin.
In my previous career in the USCG, we had policy for everything. I found it provided cover for the "hirelings", and often kept the dedicated from doing more.
Here's a model that will have to be implemented to survive and only those congregations that can afford it will survive outside of meeting in caves and holes in the ground (which may be the future):
The following workers will need to receive wages, as Scripture states, whether full or part time or contracted:
Pastor
Office Secretary
Business Manager
Maintenance/Janitorial
If school, even more paid workers.
All overseen by a volunteer Board of Elders that works closely with the Pastor and which contains President, VP, Treasurer and Recording Secretary. No separate Church Council which can undermine the Pastor and Elders with various "board chairs" including women. All other volunteers, male or female, can serve on temporary committees as needed for whatever events/tasks they ask the Elders to approve of. Voters assemblies are to be male only.
Interesting. In my congregation, the Church Council (loosely "elected") is over the "Elders." Personally, I have issues with the Church Council not following the Church Bylaw. But hey, don't SAY that, for goodness sake!
This criticism of church polity is a bit harsh. First let me establish my credentials: I have served on the LCMS Rocky Mountain District Constitution Committee for ten years.
My observation is that very few congregations have switched to the Carver model. The ones that have are larger congregations of 250 or more attendance in per week that also have larger staffing. Most congregations are still using the traditional board polity (although that wasn't used widely until after WW2, before it was primarily "Herr Pastor"). Other polity models are pastor driven, elder driven, champion driven, family driven and hybrids of board/Carver/pastor.
The LCMS nor the RMD dictate what kind of polity a congregation should use. The LCMS offers guidelines:
In fact, most congregations haven't changed or updated their constitution and bylaws for years. All have "Voters Assembly/Meeting" as the ultimate decision maker yet only a small number of members actually ever attend. Mostly when a congregation is "on the ropes" does their C&B become relevant, then it is usually too late.
It is not polity that drives the congregation but people. Yes, you need a framework so you have organization to work within but even boards don't work if no one volunteers to be on them. Carver, boards or any system will not serve a congregation without leadership AND participation. The polity needs to serve the needs of the congregation, not determine it's fate.
Pastors are not CEOs or managers and are not trained as such. While there may be some administrative tasks, their function is clearly defined in Article XXVIII, Timothy and Titus.
Exactly. This sounds like it deemphasizes doctrinal faithfulness. Pastors are trained to provide doctrinally faithfully preaching, catachesis, worship and pastoral care. The outcomes are in the hands of the Lord. It is required of a steward that they be faithful. The problem is we have lost faith in the power of the Word to achieve God's outcomes in our midst. Outcomes are in the hand of God. Focusing on outcomes rather then fidelity will inevitably lead to a lack of fidelity.
This true, but at the same time many men are arriving at parishes devoid of quality lay leadership. The new generation of pastors are going to need a crash course in business administration.
I have to rely upon the Biblical role of the pastor. I've heard it referred to as pastors and laity staying on their respective lanes. I recall having a conversation with a pastor regarding this topic. While he felt that he was a CEO I reminded him that his role is defined in the Bible and our Book of Concord. I would rather be angry at the trustees for not mowing the grass or clearing the snow than the pastor. Maintenance is the role defined for the trustees; not the pastor.
My church has adopted the policy based governance about 15 years ago. There is no accountability. We had to have a reduction in force not long ago that almost tore the place apart. In the past, the school board would be involved and they would be the ones to "take the heat". But with this model, it ultimately falls on the principal and lead pastor. How do you go to church after they eliminate your position or you have your hours cut to part time so they don't have to pay you insurance? What about if you feel there's a theological issue? No board of elders means you only have the option of dealing with the pastor. If the pastor is the person that approves nominations for the governing board seats, I guess you just find another church. Another issue is, the pastor can always take a call and leave. The congregation need to "run" the church and the pastor needs to be a pastor. We need less CEO's and more pastors
Thanks, Mike. Tragic, but very valuable intelligence for congregations and districts pushing it.
I have some experience working with private Christian schools that use the Carver model of governance. I've observed all of the problems described here.
One reason the Carver model can be especially troublesome for an organization in decline is that it can institutionalize and reinforce weak leadership, often because stronger leaders have already passed from the scene and the middling manager who occupies the executive role inherits it by default (or, in a church, by call). While the board focuses on drafting and revising policies and the executive focuses on checklists and morale management, no one leads.
I've been watching the downward spiral of a Carver model organization in real time over the past few years. I don't know why I'd recommend this model to the average congregation with a limited talent pool for the policy board and a pastor who lacks any organizational leadership experience outside of pastoring.
Thanks, Charles. Excellent real world observations.
In my (albeit it limited) experience our churches just need leadership. Men willing to look at the situation and either determine it is too difficult to fix with the resources available or getting down to the hard business of dragging a church out of the mud. Maybe it still fails but at least if the basics are taken care of you can focus on the actual ministry which can help attract people.
The Carver Policy Governance model is NOT a theology. It is a governance framework designed to clarify roles, prevent micromanagement, and strengthen accountability. When thoughtfully adapted, it need not subordinate Scripture and the Confessions to management theory; rather, it can serve as a tool that allows congregations to focus more clearly on their mission.
Much of the critique assumes that Policy Governance necessarily redefines pastors as corporate CEOs or isolates them from brotherly correction. That outcome is not inherent to the model itself but depends on how it is implemented. In fact, Carver’s emphasis on clear delegation and defined accountability can prevent both pastoral overreach and board interference—two dynamics that often fuel conflict in congregations.
The concern that the model “insulates” leaders overlooks a key feature: regular, explicit monitoring against stated ends and limitations. Healthy monitoring is not bureaucratic abstraction; it is structured accountability. If a congregation defines its “Ends” theologically—faithful proclamation of Word and Sacrament, catechesis, mercy, and mission—then governance becomes a means of PROTECTING those priorities, not replacing them.
It is also worth noting that role confusion, informal power structures, and unclear authority frequently contribute to decline. In such settings, clarity can be liberating. The model does not generate relational health, but neither does any structure. Relational maturity, repentance, and reconciliation must be cultivated regardless of governance design.
Churches are not corporations. But they are organized bodies that steward resources, personnel, and public trust. A governance model that strengthens clarity and accountability need not bureaucratize the Office of the Ministry. Properly understood, it can free pastors to focus on spiritual leadership while boards faithfully exercise their governing responsibilities.
The real question is not whether Carver originated in nonprofit management, but whether a congregation can use structured governance in service to its confessional identity and mission. Used WISELY, it can.
As I began to read your article, as soon as I saw the acronym "LCEF" I knew what the problem would be. [I will, of course, go back and read the article!] You shall know them by their fruit, and as a family that was not treated as Christians should be treated (i.e. we were routinely lied-to), I think the writing is on the wall of what you'll by using anything the LCEF promotes. I was also bugged by the fact that the church services would be stopped in the middle of worshipping so that they could "advertise" about their investment offerings/etc. We were very blessed to pull our money out before things went south. Hate to say it, but... :I
Oh no, have things gone SOUTH?
Well I’m not sure, but in my case (very LONG, documented story) they kept delaying and delaying over distributing our funds, telling us they could only receive financial data via MAIL (and then telling us later, “Oh, you can just email all that to save time!”), to the BIG KICKER…the financial experts didn’t take enough taxes out of the Feds and THEN didn’t take ANY funds for our state. I took a penalty I shouldn’t have had to. But mileage may vary for other people…our family appear to be on a “Do Not Help List” that also applies to funeral homes, car dealerships, repairmen, etc. So “normal” people might not have any problems dealing with LCEF. Hope that helps! XD
As a pastor, many of us do more around the church than what's stated in our call documents. We do it because we love the congregation and want it to flourish. However, when this becomes a rule rather than an exception, a pastor robs his lay people of an opportunity to serve their Lord by employing the talents they've been given.
My role as a pastor is clearly defined and authorized by Scripture and the Confessions. So too is the role of the laity. Both should be compelled by the Spirit, not the law. When we all do our duty there is harmony, when we get out of balance the conflicts begin.
In my previous career in the USCG, we had policy for everything. I found it provided cover for the "hirelings", and often kept the dedicated from doing more.
Here's a model that will have to be implemented to survive and only those congregations that can afford it will survive outside of meeting in caves and holes in the ground (which may be the future):
The following workers will need to receive wages, as Scripture states, whether full or part time or contracted:
Pastor
Office Secretary
Business Manager
Maintenance/Janitorial
If school, even more paid workers.
All overseen by a volunteer Board of Elders that works closely with the Pastor and which contains President, VP, Treasurer and Recording Secretary. No separate Church Council which can undermine the Pastor and Elders with various "board chairs" including women. All other volunteers, male or female, can serve on temporary committees as needed for whatever events/tasks they ask the Elders to approve of. Voters assemblies are to be male only.
Interesting. In my congregation, the Church Council (loosely "elected") is over the "Elders." Personally, I have issues with the Church Council not following the Church Bylaw. But hey, don't SAY that, for goodness sake!
This criticism of church polity is a bit harsh. First let me establish my credentials: I have served on the LCMS Rocky Mountain District Constitution Committee for ten years.
My observation is that very few congregations have switched to the Carver model. The ones that have are larger congregations of 250 or more attendance in per week that also have larger staffing. Most congregations are still using the traditional board polity (although that wasn't used widely until after WW2, before it was primarily "Herr Pastor"). Other polity models are pastor driven, elder driven, champion driven, family driven and hybrids of board/Carver/pastor.
The LCMS nor the RMD dictate what kind of polity a congregation should use. The LCMS offers guidelines:
https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/4B98687D-FAD9-406B-BBFA-67EFAF139EA2
In fact, most congregations haven't changed or updated their constitution and bylaws for years. All have "Voters Assembly/Meeting" as the ultimate decision maker yet only a small number of members actually ever attend. Mostly when a congregation is "on the ropes" does their C&B become relevant, then it is usually too late.
It is not polity that drives the congregation but people. Yes, you need a framework so you have organization to work within but even boards don't work if no one volunteers to be on them. Carver, boards or any system will not serve a congregation without leadership AND participation. The polity needs to serve the needs of the congregation, not determine it's fate.