Why rethinking roles - and meetings - is essential for sustainable ministry
Who decides, who advises, and who actually does the work
I’m thinking about this in terms of Substack Seminary because it’s about vision and systematic change around how we do church.
As part of my work as a hospital chaplain, I recently completed a set of required company-wide training modules.
Some of them were clearly designed for administrators and managers, not on-call crisis chaplains like me. Still, one training - on decision-making - stuck with me. Not because it applied directly to my chaplaincy role, but because it named dynamics I see constantly in congregational life.
The training focused on clarifying roles in decision-making, especially in meetings.
It named four roles:
Decision-maker – the person with final authority
Advisors – those who offer insight and perspective
Recommenders – those who research, frame, and propose options
Execution Partners – those who carry the decision out
(They used the acronym DARE.)
Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it—especially in church settings.
Re-imagining our roles in church settings
Historically, churches have distributed these roles very differently depending on culture, polity, and expectations.
In many evangelical or non-denominational contexts, the pastor functions as the primary decision-maker, with a board acting as advisors and staff or volunteers serving as execution partners.
In many mainline churches—at least in my experience—the pattern is almost inverted. The board or ministry council becomes the chief decision-maker, the pastor offers input as an advisor, congregants may act as recommenders, and then the pastor is often assigned the task of executing the decision.
Over time, this has created a quiet but powerful shift:
Ministry becomes something done by the pastor, rather than the people.
Here’s the proposal I want to test—especially for pastors navigating part-time, quarter-time, or increasingly constrained roles.
The board or ministry council can still function as the decision-maker.
But the pastor should function primarily as an advisor—occasionally as a recommender—and never as the default execution partner.
In other words:
Ministry must return to being the work of the people.
A simple example.
A congregant says, “There’s a real need for senior ministry in our church and wider community. Pastor, what should we do?”
In the old model, the board might vote—and then assign the pastor another program to build, lead, and sustain.
In the model I’m proposing, the board still discerns the ministry. But the pastor’s role is advisory:
Does this align with our mission?
Do we have the resources and people for this?
How might we listen for the movement of the Spirit here?
The execution belongs to the congregation.
This may sound like a small shift. It isn’t.
The implications are significant.
First, ministry initiatives no longer automatically expand the pastor’s to-do list.
Second, congregations reclaim ownership of their calling and capacity.
Third—and this matters deeply right now—expectations begin to align with paid time and actual availability.
If a pastor is paid 10, 15, or 20 hours a week, the church must plan accordingly.
Which brings me to the second half of the training—and the part that may feel more uncomfortable.
The training suggested that if someone doesn’t clearly occupy one of the four roles in a meeting, they may be attending as a “tourist.”
And if that’s the case, the question becomes unavoidable:
Is this the best use of your time?
Time is the real issue here.
If pastors are paid for limited hours, then they must only work those hours. That necessarily means not attending every meeting.
The training also named different types of decisions:
Ad-hoc – one-off decisions of varying significance
Big-bet – high-stakes decisions with long-term impact
Cross-cutting – decisions that affect multiple groups
Delegated – decisions intentionally handed off
Once you name these, it becomes clear:
the pastor does not need to be present for all of them.
Delegated decisions? Often no pastor needed.
Cross-cutting or big-bet decisions? Pastoral presence and counsel likely matter.
Ad-hoc decisions? Use common sense.
Relational trust remains essential—but clarity protects everyone.
There’s a common refrain in most workplaces:
“This could have been an email.”
That’s true in churches too—maybe even more so.
We usually frame this as a problem of wasted time.
I think the deeper issue is time efficiency.
As leadership roles grow more complex—with fewer resources and less paid time—pastors and must be far more disciplined about where their time goes.
I’m currently on a newly forming nonprofit board, and there have already been moments where I’ve thought:
“There’s no real reason for me to be in this meeting. Just tell me what needs to be done.”
That’s not disengagement. That’s clarity.
As more pastors move into part-time roles, spending three to five hours a week in meetings simply isn’t sustainable.
This is where the concept of job crafting becomes helpful—intentionally shaping a role to align with real capacity and responsibility. Done well, it’s one of the strongest protections against burnout.
Being disciplined about meetings isn’t just about honoring an hourly agreement.
It’s about sustainability—for leaders and for congregations.
Pastors cannot be in every room.
They shouldn’t try to be.
Churches must protect leadership time for what matters most—leaving space for emergencies, pastoral presence, and discernment—rather than filling calendars with busy work.
That kind of clarity takes courage.
But it may be one of the most faithful adjustments churches can make right now.