Ministry: No one formally in charge

We’d like to start a legitimate urban ministry, with the same goals as most other ministries in America—to love people in the name of Jesus.

But our ministry will be significantly different.  There would be no reason to replicate an existing ministry, we could simply join one.  But we believe that a new form of mission will reach people that fall between the cracks and will be a positive step towards replicating the kind of community that Jesus intended.

One significant difference between our ministry and others is that there’s no one formally in charge.

Like Wikipedia, Craigslist, Alcoholics Anonymous and the Apache Indians, there’s no centralized leadership.

Traditional ministries have one person in charge.  If you have a problem, you can talk to that person.  Ultimately, if you have a fundamental issue with that person’s leadership, your options are to leave or seek a higher authority.

Although Melissa and I do exert a lot of influence over this ministry, it’s only because we’ve demonstrated the most ambition and the most expertise.  In the end, we’re only leaders in as much as others agree to follow us.

If another person in the ministry’s internal community (those who have decided to commit 100% to the mission) were to lead the group by their own expertise towards another program or goal, then we each only maintain control to the degree that others are willing to give us time and energy towards our individual ambitions.

Ideally, in this type of arrangement each member of the community will exert a certain amount of leadership.  In accordance with our gifts, we can trust one person to lead us in this direction, and another to lead us in that.  The system is self-delegating.

Theoretically, this will maximize productivity, efficiency and morale, while minimizing waste.

The risk is that the group will be led in an unwise or unplanned direction.  This is a possibility, however, it is extremely unlikely.

The internal community members will be accepted because of their commitment to the same fundamental ideals upon which the ministry is founded.

Because the ministry is founded on values and ideals, not on a specific leadership or organizational structure, persons with opposing views would have no motivation to stick around.  Saboteurs have no chance of success.

Because the leadership does not exist, it can not be corrupted.

In addition, the decentralized nature of the ministry creates 100% oversight.  One bad apple can not spoil the pie.  One person working against the values of the ministry will be working alone, and will be lovingly rebuked by every other member of the internal community.

No one has to censure a bad apple, or impeach them, or remove funding, the dissenter simply won’t be able to maintain any support.

Most importantly, the organization has no significant assets to commandeer, and there’s no leader against which to mutiny.

It’s theoretically impossible (and pointless) for someone to orchestrate a coupe against the ideals of the organization.

Without a formal structure, the ministry will have the freedom to identify community needs in real-time and fulfill them.  The mission can’t be thwarted by subverting or eliminating any one individual, and no one person can lead the group into foolish pursuits.

Without a formal leader, the group can’t be corrupted by the ambitions of one renegade.  And the mission won’t fail if something should happen to “the leader”.

This decentralized approach will eliminate waste, maximize morale and maintain the integrity of the mission.  We believe that organically delegating the leadership of this ministry will be a positive step towards restoring the church we find in the book of Acts.

---

I’m certain that I haven’t explained this very well, so please leave questions and comments below.

Comments

Add a comment