Mission and Structure: Are They Enemies?

On Friday the Sovereign Grace churches ratified a whole new way of functioning as a family of churches. We introduced a level of organization that far surpasses anything in our history together. That is, we have multiple times more committees and structures than at any point in our past.

The question could rightly be asked in the face of this new labyrinth, "Won't this kill mission?" If six committees now replaces one, and if thirty leaders replace two (or whatever the exact numbers), won't moving ahead in mission be lost now in a sea of bureaucracy? Won't this actually kill the life of our movement rather than propel us ahead in mission?

The answer from the Bible is a resounding, "No!"

Acts 6:1-7 is the closest parallel situation to what we have experienced over the last several years, and the lesson it teaches is that not only does structure not kill mission, but structure is essential to mission.

The passage begins with a picture of growth and life and vitality: "while the disciples were increasing in number" (Acts 6:1). Pentecost is only barely in the background, and a steady stream of miracles and wonders have happened in the life of the church. Evangelism and conversions are a regular feature of this new church.

But amidst this stunning growth there is a problem. In fact, the way Luke describes the situation, the implication is that growth is now stunted and will remain stunted until the issue is resolved. There is a "complaint" that surfaces that reveals real problem in this young church. A group of Greek Christians makes it known that their widows are being left out of the daily ration of food (v. 1).

The response of the apostles to this situation is important to grasp. They were seeing amazing growth and now there is a legitimate complaint from a group within the church. If they felt structure was an enemy of growth, they would have sought an 'organic' solution or an ad-hoc, grass-roots approach, one without titles or committees or requiring any official leadership. That is not what happened.

What these apostles did was to carve out another office in the church, another recognized set of leaders that would thus establish a new layer of organization. They said to "select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task" (6:3). We know these leaders by the name used later in the New Testament: deacons (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13).

Once this structure was put in place—the seven are chosen and ordained in vv. 5-6—we see how mission and structure are inseparable: "The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

In verse 1 "the disciples were increasing"; now "the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly" (emphasis mine). Before there was complaining because a legitimate need was felt. Now there were seven competent deacons to provide for that need so that the apostles could get on with the mission—the mission including providing for the poor among them, of course. When the apostles were dealing with a practical issue, they were not devoting themselves "to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (v. 4). When the deacons stepped up to organize for the need, "the word of God kept on spreading" (v. 7).

It is certainly true that too much structure can kill mission. Had the apostles chosen 70 deacons who needed a school to train them and customized uniforms to wear, mission would be thrown into quicksand.

It is also true that the wrong kind of structure can kill mission. If the apostles had said one of the Twelve would assume leadership in this practical area, it would have stunted growth because it would have taken a man with one set of gifts and put him into a position where another set of gifts was required. And it would have reduced the resources of those given to "the word of God" (v. 2).

Or if the apostles had said just anyone would do, no matter how godly or gifted (the attitude of 'people grow the most when you give them a task'), they would have killed mission. Ungodliness would have weakened the church and likely meant that the widows were still not being fed.

But when the right structure is created, one that is adequate for the job, skillfully crafted, and which meets a true need, mission results.

We don't know, of course, whether the current Sovereign Grace polity is the exact right structure to produce an expanding and strong family of churches, but there is much reason to be encouraged. Specific structures have been put in place to address targeted needs. There is no structure for structure's sake, and there was a sincere attempt made to make the organization as streamlined as possible and still address the felt needs of a growing family of churches.

Our hope now is that after an extended season of wrestling with a situation that needed new structures, we, too can experience the growth we see in Acts 6:7: "The word of God kept on spreading, and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly." Of course, it will take some time in the next months to implement all of the features of the new polity. But hopefully, even in this season of transition, our churches will experience a new faith and vision for mission, growth, evangelism, and the Spirit-empowered life that the Bible pictures for us.

Lord Jesus, let it be so.

Daniel