Are church constitutions necessary? Okay, easy question. The answer is yes. Not necessary biblically, but in our times they're pretty necessary functionally for recognition by the state and for clarity. But how detailed must we be in church constitutions. Should they include every operational characteristic of the church? Probably most people would say no to that. So then, what is necessary?
How's this for a start? Below are nine sections (articles) I came up with for a church constitution.
1. Name, Location, and Purpose
2. Fundamental Beliefs
3. Membership
4. Operation
5. Officers
6. Financial Support Policy
7. Affiliation
8. Amendment Procedure
9. Dissolution
Okay, now, two questions: 1. Can you think of a topic that belongs in a church constitution that could not fit into one of these nine sections? (I know almost anything can fit in section 4, but is it of importance that it needs its own section?) and 2. Are any of the listed sections unnecessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Listing these sections is a lot easier than hammering out what belongs in them, especially in section 4. So, I have a few questions:
ReplyDeleteIn section 2, are you talking about listing non-negotiables? Should other church assemblies who want to work with this assembly be able to agree with those?
In section 4, are you thinking of church polity and meeting times? Polity seems to be less flexible than meeting times.
In section 7, does "affiliation" refer to denominational ties?
Just want to be sure I understand the parameters of the discussion. I think that all the sections need to be there.
Brenda,
ReplyDeleteThis is only the first step. In separate posts I want to go into the detail for each section. As far as your questions go:
1. Whether section 2 has non-negotiables in it or more than that is a topic for discussion. We are creating (theoretically) a constitution for the church, which means for all the members. Therefore, members will have to agree to these Fundamental Beliefs. In that sense, I would think they'd have to be non-negotiables (vital doctrines) or else we'd be open to charges of divisiveness. But we can discuss that more under that post.
Working with other church assemblies, I think, would slide in under Article 4: Operation (unless someone thinks working with other churches should be one of the fundamental beliefs---to be discussed under that post).
2. In answer to your section 4 question--Yes, here's where we can discuss church polity and meetings. But discussion will include, among other things, whether we need to specify meeting times in the constitution.
3. Yes, the section 7 title Affiliations does refer to things like denominational ties. Of course, the statement may end up reading that the church is autonomous without any denominational ties.
Therefore, within each section, parameters are fairly open. THe point of this post is to develop an understanding of whether, because of importance or need for emphasis, some categories that other church constitutions sometimes include should have their own articles (sections)--like Committees, Ministries, Standards for Workers, etc.
My general tendency is to want to keep the constitution as basic as possible. That's not to say a church should be unorganized. But organization can occur through developing a set of policies (which can be changed much more easily and with less angst than amending a constitution.