Can't we just do the ministry?
Even today, committees generally serve a good purpose. They handle specific tasks for the Congregation Council, freeing the Congregation Council to focus on other items of importance, like vision and mission. If the Congregation Council is unable to accomplish all its work or so focused on minutia that it cannot see the big picture, it may need committees to fill the gap.
Many congregations simply do not have the membership to support numerous committees. When choosing between getting volunteers to organize and participate in a service project and putting volunteers on committees to do financial management, congregations feel a great strain. The former is their real purpose, but they cannot ignore the latter. What are they to do?
Even if membership is not a problem, everyone knows people hate committees. No one wants to serve on them anymore, and they can come with lots of problems. Volunteers love serving, but generally hate doing office work. Committees should be a relic of the past, right?
Few congregations can or should eliminate committees entirely. Yet because of this valuable shift from committee-focused congregations to ministry-focused congregations over the past century, it is important to determine which committees are vital. Most governance advise recommends a visionary pastor, a governing board focused on affirming that vision and planning for its implementation, and a minimal number of committees to cover vital functions.
Or, as I heard it put recently, what are our non-negotiables? Before answering these questions, a congregation needs to check its assumptions. We have to care for our building, unless we don't really need a building. We have to bring in an offering, but do we need a $10,000 stewardship campaign to do it? When answering these question, there are two places to prioritize. First, what are our ministry priorities? If helping panhandlers, an adoption support ministry, and weekly worship are your priorities, then those are the things that have to get done. The building and stewardship only matter to the extent it supports those things, and neither may be necessary to do that. The second is what are required to do as an congregation? Chapter 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12, give you a lot of guidance here. You have to have officers. You have to provide worship services. You have to have an annual member meeting. Make a list of what you have to do to be faithful to your mission and exist as a congregation. Then figure out what you need to get those things done. Maybe it's committees. Maybe it's one of the other options listed below. Maybe it's something I haven't even imagined.
Though many congregations lack financial resources, the simplest solution is to hire staff to cover the work of committees. A competent administrative assistant (as opposed to a secretary) can handle much of the responsibility otherwise overseen by committees, and someone trained and paid to do the work can often do it better. However, that is a lot of trust to invest in one person, and could leave the congregation in a bind when they leave the position.
Warning: This often becomes the de facto role of the pastor. This is not ideal.
Some congregations opt for a large Congregation Council where the necessary committees are composed primarily or exclusively of council members, particularly the committee chairs. Every council member is expected to serve on a committee. Some synods employ this model.
On the one hand, this puts a lot more responsibility on the Congregation Council, and council members are likely to find their time constrained from other congregational activities. Moreover, council members may not always be the best for a particular task, and even if they are, cannot be reelected forever.
On the other hand, the rest of the congregation is completely freed to invest in ministry. A limited group would be focused on the organizational end of the ministry. Moreover, though any individual committee may not be representative of the congregation, because all work is reported back to the Congregation Council, it receives the representative support of the congregation.
This option is particularly good for tasks that are of primary importance to the Congregation Council, as defined in Chapter 12 of the Model Constitution. That chapter defines more work than a council could complete without both specific people focused upon specific issues and outside meetings. So simply make the structure fit the demand.
If this option is chosen, it begs the question of whether the Congregation Council needs to meet monthly. Most synod councils do not; why should congregation councils? Empowering the Executive Committee and officers with more authority to make decisions might allow the rest of the Council to focus on various other tasks.
As a hybrid of the first two options, a congregation could create more officers who have larger responsibilities. This both frees up most of the congregation to focus on ministry and allows the Congregation Council to focus on vision and mission.
Especially with a small stipend, it can be easier to hold officers accountable. An officer not doing their work can easily be removed from office. Unfortunately, the officer is also a member, and that is likely to create tension in the congregation.
Unfortunately, with the strengths of both systems come the weaknesses of both. The weaknesses of a staff position remain, but are minimized. The Congregation Council may become upwards of 75 percent officers, resulting in the same issue of people not having the skills for the roles or, possibly worse, a Congregation Council with little ability to bring in new voices. But if the officers are not council members, then the congregation is back to having too many people focused on the administrative tasks.
For some work, it might be as simple as being intentional in recognizing that this is a temporary assignment. Task forces (technically "special" committees) and tables are more temporary structures built for temporary work. Does everything we do have to be ongoing and permanent? People are much more likely to volunteer for something if they know there is a set end-date.
Obviously the best answer isn't any one variation, but some combination of everything.
I, the author of this site, understand ELCA polity has us organized into three expressions (churchwide, synods, and congregations), and each expression handles its own things. As we watch the ability to both have committees and have the resources to do ministry collapse, I am left wondering about the wisdom of that decision.
The desire to focus on ministry is swelling in this church, and rightly so. But that desire is being met with the wall of being an organization. Colleagues are proposing radical ideas, including getting rid of church buildings, all for the sake of being able to do ministry. They desire to get the organization out of the way so that the ministry can flourish, but in the process they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Short of uniting into large parishes (which might be smart), I wonder if the real solution would be to empower the synod or churchwide to do as much of the administrative work as possible. For example, a blanket child safety policy for the whole synod. Or a template personnel manual similar to the Model Constitution. Why does every congregation need to experts in nonprofit administration, policy writing, legal issues, etc.? Could we hire 1 accountant for every 10 congregations? How many other things are overlooked simply because congregations are not given reliable expert oversite or guidance?
I recognize the risk in giving the synod or churchwide more power over congregations. Not that they would be bad actors by any means, but that they may more regularly upset congregations or impose burdens on them they are not ready to meet (like paying for these services). It is a risk. All change is.
I simply leave you with this thought. We cannot ignore the organizational work, but we rightly want to focus on the ministry. How can we accomplish the former in such a way that we are free to focus on the latter?
Note: The ELCA does offer a limited set of sample policies, as linked on this site.