The Dangers of a Quiet Governance Change

In recent years, and without much fanfare, many churches have quietly shifted their governance structures, moving from structures where voting rights for key decisions reside with members of the congregation to structures where that authority exclusively rests in the hands of a group of elders or the church’s board.

To church leadership, the shift may make sense on paper, reducing burdens and creating efficiencies. But making such a shift also threatens to erode the trust of a congregation if it is done for the wrong reasons, or if it is done for good reasons, but mishandled. When such a significant change goes awry—as has been witnessed at a handful of high-profile churches—the consequences can be devastating.

Christianity Today’s podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill powerfully demonstrates the trouble that can arise in a church when decision-making power gets consolidated.

Situations like this one offer an important caution: Church leaders are wise to review and understand their church’s governance model, and why it exists, before making plans to change it. And if they choose to pursue a change, leaders must carefully contemplate how to communicate with their congregations to demonstrate transparency and integrity throughout that process.

The word “governance” comes from a Greek word meaning “to pilot” or “to steer.” In the context of church operations, governance connotes who has decision-making authority in significant matters such as buying or selling church property, adopting the annual budget, the approval of a merger or acquisition, and the hiring or firing of key leaders.

A church’s governance structure most commonly gets set at the time the church is founded. How it gets set depends on several factors, including denominational affiliations.

Many churches incorporate at their founding. Whether incorporated or not, nearly all adopt governing documents known as bylaws. These documents define the systems and processes for decision-making and leadership within the church.

Church bylaws typically reflect one of these models:

A strong governance model often includes:

All three components can coexist across different governance models.

After more than 20 years representing churches, I’ve reviewed hundreds of bylaws. While the congregation-led model remains common, many churches are now shifting toward board- or elder-led models that consolidate decision-making.

This shift often occurs through bylaw revisions, reducing or eliminating the congregation’s decision-making role. When one part of the governance ecosystem is removed, problems frequently arise.

Church members are often the lifeblood of a congregation. Removing their voice from decisions can cause confusion and distrust.

I grew up in a rural church with fewer than 200 members. These members:

Quarterly business meetings allowed members to vote on everything from budgets to special events. Membership came through baptism and fellowship. Members were deeply invested in church operations.

When a congregation-led church changes its structure suddenly, members can feel blindsided.

Church leaders may choose to move away from congregation-led structures for reasons like:

However, fast decisions are not always wise. Requiring a majority or supermajority ensures careful deliberation and protects against impulsive decisions.

I’ve observed a rise in litigation tied to governance changes, especially when:

Courts are increasingly weighing in—especially when the dispute involves corporate governance rather than doctrine.

Judges often side with long-term attendees and donors who are excluded from decision-making, especially if they were not informed of bylaw changes. Courts can rule on corporate matters that don’t require interpreting religious doctrine.

Mars Hill never used a congregation-led model, but its downfall underscores the risks of governance consolidation.

Founded in 1996, Mars Hill grew to 12,000 weekly attendees across 15 campuses. In 2014, internal conflicts and leadership issues led to its collapse.

One key decision: Founder Mark Driscoll revised the bylaws to concentrate power among a small group of elders—including himself. This governance shift limited accountability and fueled the church’s downfall. (See The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, Episode 7.)

Churches considering a move from congregation-led to board-led structures should address these:

A governance change made in secrecy can devastate a church. The Mars Hill story offers a strong caution: concentrated power with no accountability can create lasting damage.